★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[TamiLee]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

The problem is NOT solved with reduced supply. You have less coins that are worth more. People either dump or the less coins mined by the auto sell miners are sold at a higher rate. Its an illusion reducing the supply.

More people invested and interested is the solution. This alone is a patch fix...... SERVICES, USE and development is the only way forward.

The miner integrated into the wallet will solve the auto dump issue in a way if more people adopt DGB and the wallet.

The services and use... well i'm shit out of ideas there. My gaming service was going to use DGB as the primary currency but I think for now i'll switch coins. Adoption on the service would mean i'd have to sell a portion to realise fiat for my weekly pay and hold the rest in hopes of it succeeding. Big risk at present. Not to mention if it drives price up through adoption I have to compete with auto miners which i'm not too keen on betting on.

Don't reduce supply but remove sha and scrypt and put neoscrypt and Lyra2RE in place to remove most auto miners. This will mean more miners wait for higher price instead of dumping out as coins mined.

[CryptoRaver]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

The problem is NOT solved with reduced supply. You have less coins that are worth more. People either dump or the less coins mined by the auto sell miners are sold at a higher rate. Its an illusion reducing the supply.

More people invested and interested is the solution. This alone is a patch fix...... SERVICES, USE and development is the only way forward.

The miner integrated into the wallet will solve the auto dump issue in a way if more people adopt DGB and the wallet.

The services and use... well i'm shit out of ideas there. My gaming service was going to use DGB as the primary currency but I think for now i'll switch coins. Adoption on the service would mean i'd have to sell a portion to realise fiat for my weekly pay and hold the rest in hopes of it succeeding. Big risk at present. Not to mention if it drives price up through adoption I have to compete with auto miners which i'm not too keen on betting on.

Don't reduce supply but remove sha and scrypt and put neoscrypt and Lyra2RE in place to remove most auto miners. This will mean more miners wait for higher price instead of dumping out as coins mined.

Why not can you explain a bit more

[HR]

Don't reduce supply but remove sha and scrypt and put neoscrypt and Lyra2RE in place to remove most auto miners. This will mean more miners wait for higher price instead of dumping out as coins mined.

Now there's an obvious solution that I'm sure we'll all ask ourselves why we didn't think of that ourselves. I'll sign up for the removal of sha and scrypt and their substitution, but I'm still on the fence about their possible replacements. Great idea. And the huge "security flaw" would be solved at the same time! You get two for one with this one!

Then, of course, lots of marketing to new user target markets, and, if you really believe in your coin, and only if you really believe, a concerted steady effort to get DGB in front of possible investors (in the currency itself, not secondary infrastructure) so they have the opportunity to get involved (just like we did in our day), but, again, only if you really believe . . . otherwise it's best to forget it.

[digitaldoxy]

And therefore, reduced the supply and the problem is solved. People buy only ~500k DGBs per day. If enough people know DGB, the supply can be raised again.

Do not set yourselves under pressure by the large supply.


The life cycle is not a straight line or curve, you must regulate the market. On the other side are people and not machines. people needs a leader or rules. the coin-"evolution" this is not static process or algorithm. The largest part of the crypto-currencies is chaos, adjustments and rules are not bad!

The problem is NOT solved with reduced supply. You have less coins that are worth more. People either dump or the less coins mined by the auto sell miners are sold at a higher rate. Its an illusion reducing the supply.

More people invested and interested is the solution. This alone is a patch fix...... SERVICES, USE and development is the only way forward.

The miner integrated into the wallet will solve the auto dump issue in a way if more people adopt DGB and the wallet.

The services and use... well i'm shit out of ideas there. My gaming service was going to use DGB as the primary currency but I think for now i'll switch coins. Adoption on the service would mean i'd have to sell a portion to realise fiat for my weekly pay and hold the rest in hopes of it succeeding. Big risk at present. Not to mention if it drives price up through adoption I have to compete with auto miners which i'm not too keen on betting on.

Don't reduce supply but remove sha and scrypt and put neoscrypt and Lyra2RE in place to remove most auto miners. This will mean more miners wait for higher price instead of dumping out as coins mined.

I'm no instaminer, I mine and buy DGB exclusively (in excess of 20 million and growing), I support it with all my mining hardware as do many other SHA and Scrypt miners. Do you really want to jeopardize  that support? We are already integrating DGB with only one other coin as the primary payment option in an excess of 1 million USD funded VR project that will benefit both ourselves as currency holders, and many of you here.... Take a chill pill and learn the art of patience, it'll pay off in the long run I'm sure.

Alot of posts with suggestions of changing DGB's supply etc etc seem to be worried about the current slump, are you all instaminers or pump and dump traders? The reason I ask is most of the suggestions would actually damage DGB in the longterm in my humble opinion. If your outlook is long term, then I don't understand the concern, buy while the buying is good, it's a golden opportunity! If on the other hand, you're an instaminer or pump and dump trader, then I completely understand your concern, but truthfully, and I mean no disrespect, DGB will do better to see you all drop your holdings now and let us buy you up as guardians for the future and longterm wellbeing of DGB.

Playing around with supply etc would not bring more trust and investment on the longterm, rather it's a tell tale sign of a coin that will be manipulated for short term gain based on kneejerk reactions to market sentiment.... AKA a great pump and dumper!.... Something I would definitely not invest my time or money in!

As I've said, this is my personal opinion as a true believer in DGB being a future mainstream currency.... Is it possible that some people need to reconsider their belief and real motivation for getting involved with DGB, and change that, rather than the coin itself?

[HR]

Traded at 21 SAT.

Now that's something to be proud of, and good reason to kick up your feet and do nothing!

@digitaldoxy, ASIC miners are a problem, they have been, and always will be a problem runningcounter current to widely distributed and decentralized at every step along the way. That reality will never change. If you add up the hashrates for groestl, skein and qubit you'll see we have a nice network base without sha and scrypt. It would be acceptable to also assume that the replacements would themselves add their proportional equivalents. What other argument do you have in favor of sha?

This would also make o0o0's idea regarding the incorporation of an auto miner in the wallet itself more viable since that while it is currently practically impossible to earn any kind of payout with a small miner, the elimination of sha and scrypt would probably change that for the positive . . . and don't forget that we are ACTIVELY going after gamers now, and they aren't using ASICs either. 

[digitaldoxy]

Traded at 21 SAT.

Now that's something to be proud of, and good reason to kick up your feet and do nothing!

@digitaldoxy, ASIC miners are a problem, they have been, and always will be a problem runningcounter current to widely distributed and decentralized at every step along the way. That reality will never change. If you add up the hashrates for groestl, skein and qubit you'll see we have a nice network base without sha and scrypt. It would be acceptable to also assume that the replacements would themselves add their proportional equivalents. What other argument do you have in favor of sha?

This would also make o0o0's idea regarding the incorporation of an auto miner in the wallet itself more viable since that while it is currently practically impossible to earn any kind of payout with a small miner, the elimination of sha and scrypt would probably change that for the positive . . . and don't forget that we are ACTIVELY going after gamers now, and they aren't using ASICs either.  

I hear you HR, the issue is, just because SHA and Scrypt are the only ASIC's now, doesn't mean that will be the case in the very near future. Any algo that gets enough following to build a market base for ASIC manufacturers will be at risk.... It's actually a good sign your coin is probably becoming worth something IBM just produced 7nm chips and they're only a few years away from mainstream production, meaning any algo will be at risk due to the affordability of high power silicon chips in small form factor... I feel it's best to accept ASIC's as a part of life, and build appropriate mechanisms to deal with hash rate spike's into the crypto, just like DGB has already done.

EDIT:
Re: "and don't forget that we are ACTIVELY going after gamers now, and they aren't using ASICs either"

I am not talking about encouraging gamers to mine, that's up to the DGB devs, we are not a crypto developer, but rather a crypto facilitator, that's why we've chosen a crypto rather than develop one ourselves.... I'm talking about creating demand for DGB with a product that has a projected yearly turnover well in excess of DGB's current market cap.

[yoyoamigo]

I remember when Crypto-raver became furious on the other forum when I talked about this coin going to shit...Well here we are at 25 sats and the end is not in sight...I got the feeling that many people in here practice wishfull-thinking rather than actually doing significant things to get connected to the real economy. And IF progress is being made behind the scenes why don't the devs have decided to share this much earlier. Now it's not too late to turn things around, but if there is not going to be significant progress within the next month I think confidence will erode even further. Yet somehow I still got the feeling that in the end this project is going to be a success, I applaud Jared his decision to keep us updated with video blogs, I am sure that will at least partly restore confidence.

+1

nice to see lots of serious discussion going on about DGB's price, supply, POW mining algo, its current and future state. Everything is being thrown out to the floor. That's good. Because the community is showing that we are dead serious about Digibyte. the community has certainly done a considerable amount of work for DGB too and when prices are back down to where it once was, it can be difficult. to be on a down trend is okay. but to go back all the way down to where we lifted off, its no wonder why there are so much questioning and debate ongoing.

As we all can see, the DGB Community are serious about this. If we aren't, there wouldn't be any discussion or questions at all.

I have been following Digibyte for the past 1.5 years now. Seeing how far it has come, i still have a huge amount of faith in the Digibyte Team. Because they have proven that they were able to go beyond and deliver more than what they had promise for the past 1.5 years. But the past 2 months have certainly been tough and there has certainly been a lack of official update announcements that i used to see every 1-2 months on this thread. the most that all of us saw were some patching or fixes for Digibyte's Wallet, Digibyte's Tipbot, etc. Also, it is SADDENING to see that the last blog post was in Jan 2015. Digibyte team, you know that is one bad *impression* if there isn't any blog updates for 6 months now.

However, i am willing to continue holding my DGBs and buy more when prices are favorable. i am not gonna let 2 months put me out of this so easily. Knowing what is in store for Digibyte and knowing the development speed and powers that the DGB Team has shown me for the past 1.5 years, they can still turn this all around and make a huge comeback. Whatever problems is happening behind the scenes, hopefully the DGB Team can settle whatever they need to deal with in the weeks to come.

Regardless, all things will come to an end. If DGB's pace or trend for the past 2 months continue till the end of 2015, that will certainly spell doom for Digibyte and for all of us.

[MentalCollatz]

...snip...

Of course, everything I'm saying is just off the top of my head, but without any serious statistical analysis on the part of those that say this is a reality - a 51% attack with less than 51%, or even with 61%, as has been said here - what I'm saying holds the same weight (if not more since common sense tells us that less than half is not equal to half).

Common sense tells us that a 51% attack requires a 51% control of the ENTIRE network, not 51% of 20% of the network, unless you're able to stop the other 4 algos from discovering new blocks over a short period of time, something which no-one has ever said is possible (will this be the next shoe to drop?) and something that doesn't happen regardless of how much one individual algo's hashrate spikes.

...snip...

This made me laugh - especially the part about what you're saying holding even more weight because it's based on "common sense".  No offense, but no amount of "common sense" can match up to having read (and written parts of) the source code.  Let me do my best to break it down:

If you mine a block using SHA256d at difficulty 1000000, the network says this block contains 1000000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Scrypt at difficulty 30, the network says this block contains about 120000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Groestl at difficulty 200, the network says this block contains about 100000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Skein at difficulty 1000, the network says this block contains 24000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Qubit at difficulty 40, the network says this block contains about 40000 "work units".

If one block of each algo is mined every 150 seconds on average, this amounts to 8560 "work units" per second by the main network.

Now consider an attacker with enough hashpower to maintain the SHA256d difficulty at 1300000 (without the rest of the network).  At one block every 150 seconds this amounts to 8666 "work units" per second.  Therefore, the attacker can produce "work units" at a faster rate than the main network, and use this to mount a 51% attack against the coin.

So what about the one-cpu attack?  Well, at the time Myriad was taking the sum of the difficulties (without the multipliers) as the "work units".  In the above example each block would contain 1001270 "work units", regardless of which algorithm was used.  The attacker chooses a starting point for his chain when the SHA256d difficulty is high, and because he doesn't mine SHA256d the difficulty for that algo doesn't change.  Eventually, the attacker's blocks have difficulties that look something like (1500000, 1, 1, 1, 1) and generate 1500004 "work units" per block, despite the attacker actually mining at difficulty 1.  The dev team fixed it by adding a decay step to the work calculation - if too many blocks go by without a particular algorithm finding a block, the "work units" provided by that algorithm are reduced (possibly all the way to 0).  But Myriad is still vulnerable if the attacker has slightly more than 50% of the SHA256d hashrate.

So how do we solve it?  In the DigiSpeed branch, "work units" are calculated by multiplying all of the difficulties, then taking the 5th root.  For the example difficulties at the top of this post, it works out to about 750 "work units" per block.  But if an attacker has enough hashpower to maintain the difficulties at (9000000, 15, 100, 500, 20), his blocks contain only 670 "work units" each, even though he controls 90% of one algorithm and 33% of the other 4 algorithms.  Note that pre-DigiSpeed "work units" are not directly comparable to post-DigiSpeed "work units", and the code contains a fudge factor to make sure the coin isn't vulnerable during the transition.

[CryptoRaver]

I remember when Crypto-raver became furious on the other forum when I talked about this coin going to shit...Well here we are at 25 sats and the end is not in sight...I got the feeling that many people in here practice wishfull-thinking rather than actually doing significant things to get connected to the real economy. And IF progress is being made behind the scenes why don't the devs have decided to share this much earlier. Now it's not too late to turn things around, but if there is not going to be significant progress within the next month I think confidence will erode even further. Yet somehow I still got the feeling that in the end this project is going to be a success, I applaud Jared his decision to keep us updated with video blogs, I am sure that will at least partly restore confidence.

If my english was not so weak it typeted here what my feelings are , but what o0o0  said comes very close how i see things now to! if i find some time soon i write it down on the other forum in dutch.

But i dont like to see the same fights here as NLG/ EFL doing for a long time.
Agree with MaNI  here keep the discussions on the forums thad made for it

Going to be honest here yet again. I was a big DGB supporter and held around 106 million DGB but i've dropped my investment by approximately 50%.

I pride myself on transparency and activity as being a factor in my investments. I still believe DGB has a lot of potential but i don't believe there is as much communication and progress to continue to keep my faith at the level it was. Also i find the news lacking... sites are nice gaming wallet nice etc but there isn't enough team and community interaction and briefing. Yes there are deals that can't be released etc but you can report in a round about way to show something is happening. Last i heard was a hard fork to match visa stuff etc and that was due a while ago... its been delayed but not much news on why and when we can expect it. I think the game needs to be stepped up and people kept informed.

The auto miners from mintsy and multipools dumping into dgb is one factor and without buy pressure from adoption its a losing battle. Lets face it. In all honesty we are all here to make money realised in either fiat or believe that DGB can and will be a micro payment device where we will get increased value from our initial investment in the form of goods.

Jared is a good person i believe and has a lot invested but i don't think at present there is enough being done to address the general public and investors individually, This may change but i encourage Jared to introduce his complete programming team and pr team and provide an avenue where they can converse with the public. I also would like to see some kind of regular blog posting or news casts that show whats happening week by week with DGB. Blind faith leads to destruction i've seen it many times in investments and regardless of what i want to believe its mind over heart in this game.

DGB is simply not adopted enough nor does it have the community following of a meme like doge to fight on sells. What it does have is dedicated devs and community but that alone isn't enough to raise the price.

I'll maintain my 60 million DGB investment for the next few months and see if the outlook changes. Please don't take this as a threat its more an open look at how i invest.
For now i've diverted my funds into netcoin. I encourage others to take a look at this.

Netcoin is a lot like DGB except its a POS coin with 100% APR interest until block 940,000 which is around this november and it halves. Netcoin has a twist on Proof of Stake (POS). Its not around having to tweek block sizes to compete... just put all your coins in 1 address and leave the wallet open. every 6 hours (4 times a day) you get a promised stake... after 14 days i can confirm this to be true. The interest rate i think starts at 20% and leads to 100% once you hit 10 million coins... it steps up from 0->10 million.

A nice coin.. if you are the type to keep your wallet closed thats fine too. When you open it you get the missed stake you are owed... you just don't get the compounding effect. Be nice though and leave it open to secure the network.

Diversification is the key to any investment portfolio and i ask you take a look at netcoin but make your own decision. Its sitting on around 330 satoshi at present which is still a good price. I invested and got in around 220-260 satoshi but its still a good price. 1 to 2 million is a nice target... it'll cost around i think 5-6 btc. Returns in time aren't too bad... better than bank interest. If you want more info pm me and i'll take it off topic and have a chat with you.

else google netcoin foundation and open comms in there forums. The devs are great. 0 premine and no foundation member holds more than 7 million coins. The total coin cap is 440.44 million at present i believe.

[HR]

...snip...

Of course, everything I'm saying is just off the top of my head, but without any serious statistical analysis on the part of those that say this is a reality - a 51% attack with less than 51%, or even with 61%, as has been said here - what I'm saying holds the same weight (if not more since common sense tells us that less than half is not equal to half).

Common sense tells us that a 51% attack requires a 51% control of the ENTIRE network, not 51% of 20% of the network, unless you're able to stop the other 4 algos from discovering new blocks over a short period of time, something which no-one has ever said is possible (will this be the next shoe to drop?) and something that doesn't happen regardless of how much one individual algo's hashrate spikes.

...snip...

This made me laugh - especially the part about what you're saying holding even more weight because it's based on "common sense".  No offense, but no amount of "common sense" can match up to having read (and written parts of) the source code.  Let me do my best to break it down:

If you mine a block using SHA256d at difficulty 1000000, the network says this block contains 1000000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Scrypt at difficulty 30, the network says this block contains about 120000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Groestl at difficulty 200, the network says this block contains about 100000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Skein at difficulty 1000, the network says this block contains 24000 "work units".
If you mine a block using Qubit at difficulty 40, the network says this block contains about 40000 "work units".

If one block of each algo is mined every 150 seconds on average, this amounts to 8560 "work units" per second by the main network.

Now consider an attacker with enough hashpower to maintain the SHA256d difficulty at 1300000 (without the rest of the network).  At one block every 150 seconds this amounts to 8666 "work units" per second.  Therefore, the attacker can produce "work units" at a faster rate than the main network, and use this to mount a 51% attack against the coin.

So what about the one-cpu attack?  Well, at the time Myriad was taking the sum of the difficulties (without the multipliers) as the "work units".  In the above example each block would contain 1001270 "work units", regardless of which algorithm was used.  The attacker chooses a starting point for his chain when the SHA256d difficulty is high, and because he doesn't mine SHA256d the difficulty for that algo doesn't change.  Eventually, the attacker's blocks have difficulties that look something like (1500000, 1, 1, 1, 1) and generate 1500004 "work units" per block, despite the attacker actually mining at difficulty 1.  The dev team fixed it by adding a decay step to the work calculation - if too many blocks go by without a particular algorithm finding a block, the "work units" provided by that algorithm are reduced (possibly all the way to 0).  But Myriad is still vulnerable if the attacker has slightly more than 50% of the SHA256d hashrate.

So how do we solve it?  In the DigiSpeed branch, "work units" are calculated by multiplying all of the difficulties, then taking the 5th root.  For the example difficulties at the top of this post, it works out to about 750 "work units" per block.  But if an attacker has enough hashpower to maintain the difficulties at (9000000, 15, 100, 500, 20), his blocks contain only 670 "work units" each, even though he controls 90% of one algorithm and 33% of the other 4 algorithms.  Note that pre-DigiSpeed "work units" are not directly comparable to post-DigiSpeed "work units", and the code contains a fudge factor to make sure the coin isn't vulnerable during the transition.

Now that's what I mean by making an argument based on hard data, and just in time!

Why is it that it's like pulling teeth to get people in cryptocurrencies to document what they're talking about? Why is it that it takes so much nudging to get this kind of info clearly published? Why is it that devs think the rest of the world should just trust them?

You know what? If that had been said a month ago, it might have gone a long ways towards supporting price since it would have been seen as a proactive announcement back then. Now, coming on the heels of all the prodding that was necessary to get a straight answer, it's actually no longer a positive, and can even be seen as a negative for dragging your feet and coming straight only when there was no other option. The potential investor will ask, "if this is their modus operandi, what will they do in the future?"

Anyhow, that's a very nice start at an in-depth explanation regarding this particular issue and for what's being done. Now let's see what more might be in store for the other burning issues of the day.

Life is all about making good decisions. I encourage all of you to reflect on that basic fact and on how you might improve on your decision making and communication.

BTW, the "common sense" bit was so absurd that it was assumed to be automatically interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek prodding joke, as in "this is so ridiculous that . . ." in the hopes of finally getting something serious in return. Looks like it worked, but as I've just said, it shouldn't be necessary and the fact that it is necessary is very detrimental to DGB.

[Bluestreet]

The price of DGB might be going down but the value of the coin is not going down as fast because bitcoin price is going up, those holding bitcoin are benefitting and can get in at lower prices,if bitcoin price goes back over 500 USD a lot of coins will drop down in price but not as much in value. For those saying 1 Sat is the lowest, it's not, a coin trading pairing can then be dropped for LTC and go below 1 sat. This has occurred a lot with very high supply coins that are hopeless. I never expect 1 sat for DGB of course!.

[halinyo]

The price of DGB might be going down but the value of the coin is not going down as fast because bitcoin price is going up, those holding bitcoin are benefitting and can get in at lower prices,if bitcoin price goes back over 500 USD a lot of coins will drop down in price but not as much in value. For those saying 1 Sat is the lowest, it's not, a coin trading pairing can then be dropped for LTC and go below 1 sat. This has occurred a lot with very high supply coins that are hopeless. I never expect 1 sat for DGB of course!.

You are right. DigiByte's price may be going down, but once Bitcoin price is stabilized at its high, then those coins dropped including DGB will rise again! So there is no point of selling any DGB. Just be patient, DGB is as safe as Bitcoin

[Jumbley]

My my, get sick for a bit and see what happens!
Some interesting conversations been going on here, on the face of it nothing has changed for me, covering a lot of old ground and I warned the community about keeping an eye on and supporting asic in DGB way back.
I still have all my DGB and that's the way it's staying because that has always been necessary at this stage in the game. I know my entire investment will be wiped by the bastards just in it for today but unfortunately that is just tough for now, I guess. I've said before, one day I hope to leave these people in the dust of DigiByte and  no one has ever said that will be tomorrow! That said, I understand that most people do not believe in this project as much as I do and I know how people get when it comes to money and the market is evidence of that.
For Fs sake people where is the faith!  I tell you where it is, we build it ourselves, just like every religion you have ever known did. Call me crazy if you like but I'm just reminding you all of 'this is just a big popularity contest.' so do your bit to make it popular!   

[bogglor]

The price of DGB might be going down but the value of the coin is not going down as fast because bitcoin price is going up, those holding bitcoin are benefitting and can get in at lower prices,if bitcoin price goes back over 500 USD a lot of coins will drop down in price but not as much in value. For those saying 1 Sat is the lowest, it's not, a coin trading pairing can then be dropped for LTC and go below 1 sat. This has occurred a lot with very high supply coins that are hopeless. I never expect 1 sat for DGB of course!.

You are right. DigiByte's price may be going down, but once Bitcoin price is stabilized at its high, then those coins dropped including DGB will rise again! So there is no point of selling any DGB. Just be patient, DGB is as safe as Bitcoin

Bitcoin started going up about a month ago when the Chinese stock market started dropping. Watch BTC drop when the market starts rallying.

[CRYPTONAIRE]

My my, get sick for a bit and see what happens!
Some interesting conversations been going on here, on the face of it nothing has changed for me, covering a lot of old ground and I warned the community about keeping an eye on and supporting asic in DGB way back.
I still have all my DGB and that's the way it's staying because that has always been necessary at this stage in the game. I know my entire investment will be wiped by the bastards just in it for today but unfortunately that is just tough for now, I guess. I've said before, one day I hope to leave these people in the dust of DigiByte and  no one has ever said that will be tomorrow! That said, I understand that most people do not believe in this project as much as I do and I know how people get when it comes to money and the market is evidence of that.
For Fs sake people where is the faith!  I tell you where it is, we build it ourselves, just like every religion you have ever known did. Call me crazy if you like but I'm just reminding you all of 'this is just a big popularity contest.' so do your bit to make it popular!   

What he said....

[ph4nt0m]

Any ASIC driven algos are bad for the markets and decentralization. They dump immediately to get their ROI. Replace SHA-256 and Scrypt with something non-ASIC and you have a part of the problem solved. NeoScrypt and Lyre2RE are good choices.

[TamiLee]

Any ASIC driven algos are bad for the markets and decentralization. They dump immediately to get their ROI. Replace SHA-256 and Scrypt with something non-ASIC and you have a part of the problem solved. NeoScrypt and Lyre2RE are good choices.

They very good choices if you to get more coins with miners who will dump at 100 instead of 28. I plan to make about 300 btc with my dgb but have to wait for stable price of 150, if dgb make it so I don't need to exchange back to btc then I will keep coins to live off

[Jumbley]

Any ASIC driven algos are bad for the markets and decentralization. They dump immediately to get their ROI. Replace SHA-256 and Scrypt with something non-ASIC and you have a part of the problem solved. NeoScrypt and Lyre2RE are good choices.

The 'holy grail' includes asics, we just want a distributed amount of them eventually mining Digibyte and holding it for a bit. Or we need to implement some other insurmountable network for ultimate security.
Part of the issue, as I see it is; a very few people control all of the asics in Digibyte at the moment and because their catch is so large, due to the efficiency of their machines,they can immediately dump and cover overheads. We need to somehow replace these few with many and then that will become harder. At the same time they prevent people from adding old mining equipment to our network by making sure it is not profitable. They control this portion of the network and as previous discussions in here have highlighted, this is a dangerous place to be but they are so far only interested in milking it, no surprises there.
 
They have pulled our pants down and have us bent over,and here we stay until we find some true distributed network of our own.

[ph4nt0m]

SHA-256 and Scrypt are so huge that a single large farm from there can abuse DGB easily.

[Jumbley]

SHA-256 and Scrypt are so huge that a single large farm from there can abuse DGB easily.

Unfortunately this is currently true and is what we must overcome. That is why I questioned faith. You would need to believe that although your asic machine cost more in electricity to run than it mined in value of DigiByte it would one day be worth it. The problem with that is people would just think, that is stupid I can buy more DGB. You might even say if enough people were thinking like that then people would buy it and the price would move up. not enough people are buying it and round and round we go.

Only a single minded community has any real chance here.